Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States. the case depends, will not arrest that jurisdiction. Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; 2 Cond. Rep. 336. 134. If a state is really a party to a suit in an inferior court, a plea to the jurisdiction may be put in there; or perhaps, without such a plea, the supreme court would reverse the judgment on a writ of error. Fowler et al. v. Lindsey, 4 Dall. 411; 1 Cond. Rep. 189. 135. The courts of the United States, under the judiciary act of September, 1798, ch. 20, have, by the delegation of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, at least as full jurisdiction of all causes of prize as the admiralty in England. Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch, 110; 3 Cond. Rep. 56. 136. The courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction of all seizures made on land or water, for a breach of the laws of the United States, and any intervention of a state authority, which, by taking the thing seized out of the hands of the United States officer, might obstruct the exercise of his jurisdiction, is unlawful. Slocum v. Mayberry et al., 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1. 137. The federal court, having cognizance of the seizure, might enforce a re-delivery of the thing by attachment, or other summary proceeding against the parties who should divest such possession. Ibid. 138. The third article of the constitution of the United States enables the judicial department to receive jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States, when any question respecting them shall assume such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting only when the subject is submitted to it by a party who asserts his rights in the form prescribed by law. It then becomes a case. Osborne et al. v. The Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738; 5 Cond. Rep. 741. 139. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction of cases of maritime torts, and may proceed in personam as well as in rem. They may, in the exercise of their admiralty jurisdiction, issue the process of attachment to compel an appearance both in cases of tort and of contract. Manro et al. v. Almeidas, 10 Wheat. 473; 6 Cond. Rep. 190. 140. Jurisdiction is neither given nor ousted by the relative situation of the parties concerned in interest, but by the relative situation of the parties named on the record; consequently the eleventh amendment to the constitution, which restrains the jurisdiction of the federal courts over suits against states, is limited to those suits in which a state is a party on the record. Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904; 5 Cond. Rep. 794. 141. A party who means to except to the jurisdiction of the court in a case of seizure, must plead to the jurisdiction. If he files a claim and plea to the merits, on which the parties are at issue, it is a waiver of any exception to the jurisdiction; and a decree on those merits cannot afterwards be arrested, unless the defect of jurisdiction be apparent on the face of the record. The Abby, 1 Mason's C. C. R. 360. 142. The courts of the United States will not entertain jurisdiction of a cause on the ground that one of the parties is an alien; unless he be stated to be such in express terms. Michaelson v. Dennison et al., 3 Day, 294. 143. Previous to the ratification of the articles of confederation, congress had authority to institute such a tribunal as the commissioners of appeals with appellate jurisdiction in cases of prize. After the ratification of the articles of confederation, it is clear the court of appeals had jurisdiction of appeals from the state admiralty courts. Penhallow v. Doane's Administrator, 3 Dall. 54; 1 Cond. Rep. 21. 144. In cases of fraud, trusts or contracts, the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is sustainable wherever the person may be found, although lands not within the jurisdiction of the court may be affected by the decree. Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; 2 Cond. Rep. 336. 145. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States extends, by the constitution, to cases where a caveat had been entered according to the laws of Virginia, existing before the erection of the part of her territory into the state of Kentucky, in which the lands in controversy were situated, on which caveat and judgment had been entered: although by the laws of Virginia the judgment was declared to be final; and the compact between Virginia and Kentucky stipulated, that rights acquired under Virginia should be decided according to the laws existing at the time the compact was entered into. Ibid. 146. The courts of the United States have no common law jurisdiction in cases of libel in criminal cases. United States v. Hudson et al., 7 Cranch, 32; 2 Cond. Rep. 405. 147. A general assignee of the effects of an insolvent cannot sue in the federal courts, if his assignor could not have sued in those courts. Sere et al. v. Pitot et al., 6 Cranch, 332; 2 Cond. Rep. 389. 148. A citizen of a territory cannot sue a citizen of a state in the courts of the United States: nor can those courts take jurisdiction in consequence of other parties being joined who are capable of suing. All the parties on each side must be subject to the jurisdiction. New Orleans v. Winter et al., 1 Wheat. 91; 3 Cond. Rep. 499. 149. A court of chancery, having obtained jurisdiction of the principal question, will proceed to make such decree as the justice and equity of the case may require. Hepburn et al. v. Dunlop et al., 1 Wheat. 197; 5 Cond. Rep. 529. 150. During the war between the United States and Great Britain, a French privateer, duly commissioned, was captured by a British cruiser, afterwards recaptured by an American privateer, again captured by the British, recaptured by another American privateer, and brought into an American port. Restitution on payment of salvage was claimed by the French consul. A claim was also interposed by citizens of the United States, who alleged their property had been unlawfully taken by the French vessel, before her first capture, and praying an indemnification from the proceeds. Restitution, as prayed, was decreed. Held, that the courts of this Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States. country have no jurisdiction to redress any sup- | Green et al. v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1; 5 Cond. Rep. posed torts committed on the high seas upon the 369. property of its citizens, by a cruiser regularly commissioned by a foreign friendly power, except where such cruiser has been fitted out in violation of our neutrality. L'Invincible, 1 Wheat. 238; 3 Cond. Rep. 558. 151. The third article of the constitution of the United States, which declares that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," vests in the United States exclusive jurisdiction of all such cases: and that a murder committed in the waters of a state where the tide ebbs and flows, is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336; 4 Cond. Rep. 275. 152. Congress have not, in the 8th section of the act of April 30th, 1790, ch. 36, for the punishment of certain offences against the United States, exercised the power, if any such is given by the constitution of the United States, of conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the United States, of a murder committed in the waters of a state where the tide ebbs and flows. Ibid. 153. Congress having provided, in the 8th section of the act of April 30th, 1790, for the punishment of murder, &c., committed "upon the high seas, or in any river, haven, basin, or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state,' it is not the offence committed, but the bay, &c., in which it is committed, that must be out of the jurisdiction of the state. Ibid. 154. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction of a murder committed on the high seas, from a vessel belonging to the United States, by a foreigner being on board of such vessel, upon another foreigner being on board of a foreign vessel. United States v. Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184; 4 Cond. Rep. 623. 155. The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction of a murder committed by one foreigner on another foreigner on board a foreign vessel on the high seas. But they have jurisdiction of a piracy thus committed. Ibid. 156. Whatever may be the exemption of a public ship herself, and of her armament and munitions of war, from being amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States the prize property which she brings into our ports is liable to such jurisdiction for the purpose of examination and inquiry, and if a proper case is made out, for restitution to those whose possession has been divested by a violation of our neutrality; and if the goods are landed from the public ship in our ports, by the express permission of our government, it does not vary the case, since it involves no pledge, that if illegally captured they, shall be exempted from the ordinary operation of the laws of the United States. Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283; 5 Cond. Rep. 284. 157. The federal courts have jurisdiction of cases involving questions arising under the compact between Virginia and Kentucky, notwithstanding that compact provided for the creation of a tribunal to determine upon its meaning. 158. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction under the act of April 30th, 1790, ch. 36, of murder or robbery committed on the high seas, although not committed on board a vessel belonging to citizens of the United States, as if she had no national character, but was held by pirates, or persons not lawfully sailing under the flag of any foreign nation. The United States v. Holmes et al., 5 Wheat. 412; 4 Cond. Rep. 708. 159. The courts of the United States will not suffer their jurisdiction to be ousted by the mere joinder or non-joinder of formal parties; but will rather proceed without them, and decide upon the merits of the case between the parties who have the real interest before it, when it can be done without prejudice to the rights of others. Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421; 5 Cond. Rep. 473. 160. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction of suits by or against executors or administrators, if they are citizens of different states, although their testators or intestates were not thus entitled to sue, or liable to be sued, in these courts. The 11th section of the judiciary act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, is not applicable to such cases. Childress et al. v. Emory et al., Ex'rs, &c., 8 Wheat. 642; 5 Cond. Rep. 547. 161. A court of the United States has no jurisdiction to enjoin proceedings in a state court. Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179; 2 Cond. Rep. 75. 162. The legislature of a state cannot annul the judgments or determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. The United States v. Judge Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; 2 Cond. Rep. 202. 163. If the record shows an inferior court had not jurisdiction of a case, the supreme court will not award a venire facias de novo. Bingham, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cabot et al., 3 Dall. 19; 1 Cond. Rep. 13. 164. Questions of prize are exclusively of admiralty jurisdiction. Ibid. 165. Where muskets were carried by the pas sengers on board of a French armed vessel from New York to a port in the West Indies, and powder was taken from on board a French frigate in the harbour of New York, and carried by this same vessel to Port de Paix; a proceeding against the vessel, as forfeited under the act of congress passed 22d May, 1798, prohibiting for one year the exportation of arms and ammunition, is a cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It is a process of the nature of a libel in rem, and does not in any degree 'ouch the person of the offender; and no jury was required for the trial of the same. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; 1 Cond. Rep. 132. 166. If a state is really a party to a suit in an inferior court, a plea to the jurisdiction may be put in there; or, perhaps without such a plea, the supreme court would revise the judgment on a writ of error. Fowler et al. v. Lindsey et al., 3 Dall. 411; 1 Cond. Rep. 189. 167. The supreme court understands the ex Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States. pressions in the act of congress, giving jurisdiction to the courts of the United States, "where an alien is a party, or the suit is between the citizen of the state where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state," to mean, that each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom have a right to sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts; that is, when the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue, or be liable to be sued, in those courts. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch, 267; 1 Cond. Rep. 523. 168. The supreme court has no jurisdiction in a writ of error to a state court, under the 25th .section of the judiciary act of 1789, if the decision of the state court be in favour of the privilege claimed under the act of congress. Gordon v. Caldeleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; 1 Cond. Rep. 524. culiar jurisdiction over testamentary matters. Armstrong v. Lear, 12 Wheat. 169; 6 Cond. Rep. 500. 175. If it does not appear by the record that the character of the original parties will support the jurisdiction, it cannot be sustained. Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46; 2 Cond. Rep. 19. 176. The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction when both parties are aliens. Ibid. 177. It may be laid as a rule which admits of no exceptions, that in all cases where jurisdiction depends on the party, it is the party named on the record. The Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Peters, 121. 178. The libel and claim exhibited a demand for money actually in the treasury of the state of Georgia, mixed up with the general funds of the state, and for slaves in the possession of the government; the possession of both of which was acquired by means which it was lawful in the state to exercise. Held, That the courts of the United States had no jurisdiction; the same being taken away by the eleventh article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States. Ibid. 123. 167. Neither the constitution nor the act of congress regards the subject of the suit, but the parties to it. A description of the parties is therefore indispensable to the exercise of jurisdiction; which is by the law limited to suits between citizens and foreigners, and between citizens of different states. Mossman, surviving 179. In a case where the chief magistrate of Ex'r, v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12; 1 Cond. Rep. 210. a state is sued, not by his name, but by his style Course v. Stead, 4 Dall. 22; 1 Cond. Rep. 217. of office, and the claim made upon him is en170. The verdict or judgment does not ascer-tirely in his official character, the state itself tain the value of the matter in dispute between may be considered a party in the record. Ibid. the parties. To determine this, recurrence must 124. be had to the original controversy-to the matter in dispute when the action was instituted. The descriptive words of the statute regulating the jurisdiction of the supreme court, in cases of writs of error and appeals, point emphatically to this criterion; and, in common understanding, the thing demanded, the penalty of a bond, and not the thing found, constitutes the matter in dispute between the parties. The nature of the case must guide the judgment of the court; and whenever the law makes a rule, the rule must be obeyed. Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401; 1 Cond. Rep. 185. 171. Where the value of the matter in dispute did not appear upon the record, the court allowed affidavits to prove the same to be taken on notice to the opposite party; the writ of error not to be a supersedeas. Williamson, Plaintiff in Error, v. Kincaid, 4 Dall. 20; 1 Cond. Rep. 215. Course et al. v. Stead et ux., 4 Dall. 22; 1 Cond. Rep. 217. 172. The court will permit viva voce testimony to be given of the value of the matter in dispute. The United States v. The Brig Union, 4 Cranch, 216; 2 Cond. Rep. 91. 173. The courts of the United States are courts of limited, but not of inferior jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction be not alleged in the proceedings, their judgments and decrees may be reversed for that cause, on a writ of error and appeal; but, until reversed, they are conclusive evidence between parties and privies. M'Cormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 192; 6 Cond. Rep. 71. 174. Jurisdiction of courts of equity over legacies cannot be exercised until the will has received probate in the proper court, having pe 180. The complainants are stated in the bill to be citizens of the state of South Carolina. The defendant, the Bank of Georgia, is a body corporate, existing under an act of the legislature, but the citizenship of the individual corpo. rators is not stated. The averment in the original bill is, that William B. Bullock and Samuel Hale are citizens of Georgia, and residents therein; William B. Bullock is afterwards designated in the bill, as "President of the Mother Bank, and Samuel Hale, as the President of the Branch Bank at Augusta, in the State of Georgia." The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction of the case. The record does not show that the defendants were citizens of Georgia, nor are there any distinct allegations that the stockholders of the bank were citizens of that state. Breithaupt et al. v. The Bank of Georgia et al., 1 Peters, 238. 181. The constitution and laws of the United States give jurisdiction to the district courts, over all cases in admiralty; but jurisdiction over the case does not constitute the case itself. The American Insurance Company v. Three Hundred and Fifty-six Bales of Cotton, 1 Peters, 545. 182. The constitution declares that "the judi cial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under it-the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority;-to all cases affecting ambassadors, or other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." The constitution certainly contemplates these as three distinct classes of cases; and if they are distinct, the grant of jurisdiction over one of them, does not confer jurisdiction over either of the other two. The discrimina COURTS. Supreme Court. General Principles. tion made between them is conclusive against | concurrent jurisdiction in cases of fraud. Lessee their identity. Ibid. 183. It cannot be alleged, that a citizen of one state having title to lands in another state, is disabled from suing for those lands in the courts of the United States, by the fact that he derives his title from a citizen of the state in which the lands lie. M'Donald v. Smalley et al., 1 Peters, 623. 184. In a contract between a mortgagor and mortgagee, being citizens of different states, it cannot be doubted that an ejectment, or bill to foreclose, may be brought in a court of the United States, by the mortgagee residing in a different state. Ibid. 624. 185. When the proceedings of a court of competent jurisdiction are brought before another court collaterally, they are by no means subject to all the exceptions which might be taken to them on a direct appeal. The general and well settled rule of law in such cases is, that when the proceedings are collaterally drawn in question, and it appears on the face of them that the subject-matter was within the jurisdiction of the court, they are voidable only. The errors and irregularities of any suit are to be corrected by some direct proceeding, either before the same court to set them aside, or in an appellate court. If there is a total want of jurisdiction, the proceedings are void, and a mere nullity, and confer no right and afford no justification, and may be rejected when collaterally drawn in question. Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Peters, 163. 186. When the jurisdiction of the court on the subject, under whose authority lands have been sold, appears on the face of the proceedings, its errors or mistakes, if any were committed, cannot be corrected or examined when brought up collaterally. Ibid. 169. 187. When there is no change of the parties to a suit during its progress, a jurisdiction depending on the condition of the parties is governed by that condition as it was at the commencement of the suit. Conolly et al. v. Taylor, 2 Peters, 565. of Rhoades et al. v. Selin, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 715. courts has once attached, no subsequent change States, can never confer jurisdiction on the courts SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 1. General principles.... 2. Original jurisdiction of the supreme court........ ........... Page 468 3. Appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court....... 472 470 1. General Principles. 195. In an action on a penal bond, the judgbe of sufficient amount, to give to the supreme ment is for the penalty, and if such judgment court jurisdiction over the suit, it is immateria how much is found to be actually due by verdict. Wilson v. Rep. 185. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401; 1 Cond of the supreme court, on account of the interest 196. A case which is within the jurisdiction a state has in the controversy, must be a case in which a state is nominally or substantially a party; it is not sufficient that a state may be consequentially affected. Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411; 1 Cond. Rep. 189. property not appearing, the supreme court per197. In an action for dower, the value of the mitted the value to be ascertained by affidavit, in order to sustain the jurisdiction of the court. Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 Dall. 20. 188. If an alien should sue a citizen, and should omit to state the character of the parties in the bill, though the court could not exercise jurisdiction while the defect in the bill remained, yet it might, as is every day's practice, be corrected at any time before the hearing, and the court would not hesitate to decree in the cause.preme court with an authority not warranted by 198. An act of congress cannot invest the su189. The courts of the United States, as courts 137; 1 Cond. Rep. 267. the constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, of equity, possess jurisdiction to maintain suits Ibid. 565. in favour of legatees and distributees for their in the supreme court, to show that the court has 199. It is incumbent on the plaintiff in error portion of the estate of the deceased; notwith-jurisdiction of the cause. United States v. The standing there may be, by the local jurispru-Union et al., 4 Cranch, 216; 2 Cond. Rep. 91. dence, a remedy at law on the administration bond in favour of the party. This class of cases testimony to be given of the value of the matter 200. The supreme court will permit viva voce is of concurrent, and not exclusive jurisdiction. in dispute. Ibid. Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mason's C. C. R. 95. 190. A court of equity has jurisdiction in a case where relief is sought against a meditated fraud, which throws a cloud over the title of the party. Briggs v. French, 1 Sumner's C. C. R. 504. 191. Courts of common law and equity have a habeus corpus where a person is imprisoned below be in favour of the defendant, the value Supreme Court. of the matter in dispute upon the writ of error in the supreme court of the United States, is the sum claimed as damages in the declaration. Cook et al. v. Woodrow, 5 Cranch, 13; 2 Cond. Rep. 173. 203. The supreme court, on appeal from the circuit court, is, with respect to facts, limited to the statement made in the court below. Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cranch, 1; 1 Cond. Rep. 229. 204. The supreme court has not jurisdiction to issue a mandamus to a register of a land office of the United States, commanding him to enter the application of a party for certain tracts of land, according to the seventh section of the act of May 10th, 1800, ch. 209, which mandamus had been refused by the supreme court of the state of Ohio, upon the submission by the register to the jurisdiction of that court, being the highest court of law or equity in that state. M'Cluny v. Silliman, 2 Wheat. 369; 4 Cond. Rep. 162. 205. A writ of error will lie from the supreme court upon the judgment of a circuit court awarding a peremptory mandamus to restore to office; but this can only be when the matter in controversy is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the court; and as nothing is in controversy but the office, its value must be ascertained by the salary. The Columbian Ins. Co. v. Wheelwright, 7 Wheat. 534; 5 Cond. Rep. 334. 206. If the record shows that the inferior court had not jurisdiction of the case, the supreme court will not, on reversal of the judgment, award a venire de novo. Bingham v. Čabot, 3 Dall. 19; 1 Cond. Rep. 13. 207. The general powers vested in the supreme court prescribe the adoption of that practice in equity and admiralty cases, which is founded on the custom and usage of courts of equity and admiralty cases, constituted on similar principles: but it is still authorized to make such deviations as are necessary to adapt its process and rules to the peculiar circumstances of the country, subject to the interposition, alteration and control of the legislature. Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 320; 1 Cond. Rep. 141. 208. The supreme court has jurisdiction under the constitution and laws of the United States to bail a person committed for trial on a criminal charge by a district judge. The United States v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17. 209. A final judgment of the supreme court is conclusive upon the rights which it decides, and no statute has provided any process by which it can reverse its own judgments. Hunter's Lessee Martin, 1 Wheat. 304; 3 Cond. Rep. 575. V. 210. If a cause has been remanded from the supreme court to a state court, and the state court decline or refuse to carry into effect the mandate of the supreme court, the supreme court will proceed to a final decision of the cause, and itself award execution thereon. Ibid. 211. The jurisdiction of the supreme court of the United States is pointed out by the constitution; but the distribution of the powers of the inferior courts is regulated and governed by the laws by which they are constituted. Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine's C. C. R. 453. 212. The supreme court will not take cogniVOL. I.-40 General Principles. zance of any cause not regularly brought before it. Dewhurst v. Coulthard, 3 Dall. 409; 1 Cond Rep. 189. 213. The supreme court has power to grant the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. Ea parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75; 2 Cond. Rep. 33. 214. It is no ground of reversal that the court below omitted to give directions to the jury upon any points of law which might arise in the cause, where it was not requested by either party at the trial. It is sufficient that the court has given no erroneous directions. Pennock et al. v. Dialogue, 2 Peters, 16. 215. The supreme court of the United States has not jurisdiction by habeas corpus or otherwise, in a case of a criminal prosecution instituted in a circuit court of the United States, for the purpose of examining the judgment and proceedings of that court in such cases. Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 3 Peters, 193. 216. The power of the supreme court to award writs of habeas corpus is conferred expressly on the court by the fourteenth section of the judiciary act, and has been repeatedly exercised. No doubt exists respecting the power. No law of the United States prescribes the cases in which this great writ shall be issued, nor the power of the court over the party brought up by it. The term used in the constitution is one which is well understood; and the judicial act authorizes the court, and all the courts of the United States, and the judges thereof, to issue the writ "for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commitIbid. 201. ment." 217. The supreme court has power to issue a mandamus directed to a circuit court of the United States, commanding the court to sign a bill of exceptions in a case tried before such court. Ex parte Crane and another, 5 Peters, 190. 218. The judiciary act, section 13, enacts that the supreme court shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding offices under the authority of the United States. A mandamus to an officer is said to be the exercise of original jurisdiction; but a mandamus to an inferior court of the United States is in the nature of appellate jurisdiction. A bill of exceptions is the mode of placing the law of the case on a record, which is to be brought before the supreme court by writ of error. Ibid. 219. That a mandamus to sign a bill of exceptions is "warranted by the principles and usages of law," is, we think, satisfactorily proved by the fact that it is given in England by statute; for the writ given by the statute of Westminster the second, is so in fact, and is so termed in the books. The judiciary act speaks of usages of law generally, not of common law. In England it is awarded by the chancellor, but in the United States it is conferred expressly on the supreme court; which exercises both common law and chancery powers, is invested with appellate power, and exercises extensive control over all |